How to strengthen case evaluation and ensure case quality?

The foundation of judicial credibility lies in the quality of judicial work. Case quality evaluation is an important link and content in judicial activities facing the society, an important yardstick for the public to measure the quality of judicial work, and has a vital impact on judicial credibility. Nowadays, all kinds of media are highly developed and social life is increasingly transparent. Any mistake or flaw in a judge's judicial behavior and case may be magnified in front of the public and become the focus of public opinion speculation. To carry out case quality evaluation activities is to start with the details of trial work, find problems, analyze reasons, strengthen training, improve the level, and promote the overall quality of front-line judges at all levels of courts. The courts in the Supreme People's Court and Henan Province attach great importance to the evaluation of case quality, and the Supreme People's Court issued the Notice on Carrying out the Evaluation of Court Judgment Documents in Full-time Job Training, making specific arrangements for carrying out the "two evaluations" activities. In order to promote the standardization and institutionalization of case quality evaluation and to welcome the summary and acceptance of the Supreme Court's "million-case evaluation and investigation" activities, the Higher People's Court of Henan Province formulated the 20 12 annual case quality evaluation and investigation work plan on the basis of summarizing the experience and practice of evaluation and investigation in recent years. In this regard, I would like to talk about several points: First, to further deepen the understanding of the evaluation work and do a good job in the evaluation of case quality, we must first solve the problem of ideological understanding, that is, we must have a correct and rational understanding of the implementation of the case evaluation system, so as to enhance our consciousness of doing this work well. Most case quality assessors have a wrong understanding of case quality assessment, mainly in: 1. They think that case evaluation is only a form of coping with inspection, not to mention that the professional level of assessors is not necessarily better than that of judges, and they often act rashly. When a judge handles so many cases in a year, it is inevitable that there will be typos and missing words. These are minor faults, and there is no need to evaluate the quality of the case. 3. They are all colleagues in the same unit, and the quality of the case has been evaluated and there is no problem. If there is a problem, report it and correct it, and will not show mercy. These views show that some comrades have not made clear the role and effect of the case evaluation system. In order to get out of the misunderstanding of thinking and eliminate the subjective unfavorable factors affecting case evaluation, I think we should grasp the following aspects: 1, and unify the guiding ideology of "standardization, guarantee, promotion and service" in trial execution. The establishment of case evaluation system is the need to safeguard judicial justice. Judicial justice and efficiency are the eternal working themes of the people's courts and the fundamental requirements of judicial work. To maintain judicial justice, the most basic, core and concrete thing is to ensure the quality of handling cases and improve judicial efficiency. Specifically, in every case, we should attach great importance to the evaluation of case quality ideologically to ensure that the procedure is legal, the facts are accurate, the evidence is conclusive and sufficient, and the judgment documents are accurate and credible. This is the most basic requirement. If this can't be done, judicial justice can't be reflected. Don't ignore small mistakes. In evaluation cases, small quality defects account for a considerable proportion, mainly due to weak sense of responsibility and carelessness. Although minor flaws and mistakes in the quality of the case have little influence on the substantive justice of the case, they reflect that a few judges are not aware of quality and responsibility, and there are careless problems in their work, which may also lead the parties to entangle the lawsuit because of misunderstanding, affect the image of the court and reduce the court's deterrence. Therefore, case handlers should attach great importance to the quality of cases, do not ignore the emergence of minor problems, and strive to create high-quality cases. 3, organized by the intermediate people's court, randomly selected personnel from the talent pool for case quality evaluation. For example, all hospitals organize case quality evaluation by themselves, all of them are colleagues in the same unit, which hinders feelings, fails to fully mobilize enthusiasm and initiative, and affects the due role of evaluation work. In order to ensure the smooth development of case quality evaluation activities, the grass-roots people's court submitted case quality evaluation personnel to the intermediate people's court, and the intermediate people's court established a talent pool for case quality evaluation. When carrying out case quality evaluation, the Intermediate People's Court randomly selects evaluation personnel from the case quality evaluation database to conduct case quality evaluation in grass-roots courts. Second, formulate relevant supporting systems. At present, most courts have a case quality evaluation system that does not match it. As a mechanism, case quality evaluation should be supported by corresponding systems, but there is no relevant system in grass-roots courts at present. First, there is no unified case quality standard. In practice, the wrong definition standard is not clear, and it is difficult to compare the standard with the reality, which is easy to cause conflicts between quality assessors and judges. Second, there is no unified way to investigate the responsibility for mistakes. At present, the accountability exists in the Measures for the Evaluation of Case Quality and the Measures for the Assessment of Comprehensive Target Management, which are inconsistent. In view of this phenomenon, the court should formulate relevant supporting systems. First, in accordance with the requirements of comprehensiveness, full time and whole process, and based on legal provisions and relevant judicial interpretations, a unified case quality standard is formulated as a case handling guide for the case handling department and a basis for the evaluation department to judge the case quality. The second is to formulate a "fault accountability system" to investigate the person responsible for the quality defects of the case. Three, in the evaluation process, it is necessary to highlight the limited key judicial resources, and the use of judicial resources must consider the maximization of judicial benefits. With the shortage of court staff, it is impossible to use more people to evaluate the quality of cases. In order to make the quality evaluation work play a role, we must highlight the key points. The focus of case quality evaluation is the litigation cases of judgment and the enforcement cases of compulsory measures, especially the cases assigned by the leading organs, the cases appealed by the parties, the cases changed after appeal and the cases of high social concern. Doing so is conducive to dissecting the "sparrow", deeply analyzing the problems existing in the quality of the case, drawing inferences from others, and improving the quality and efficiency of the evaluation work. Other enforcement cases, such as mediation, withdrawal of the lawsuit and failure to take compulsory measures, can be cross-evaluated by various business courts, and the written evaluation results can be reported to the trial management office for the record. The fourth is the implementation of reward and punishment measures. Most courts have a system of investigating the responsibility of misjudged cases, but the investigation of misjudged cases is often a mere formality, and the reward and punishment mechanism has not played its due role. The punishment measures for some case handlers who often have minor problems are not in place and have no deterrent effect. As one of the bases for the evaluation of judges, the results of case evaluation are linked with the promotion, rewards and punishments and year-end evaluation of judges, which makes judges enhance their sense of responsibility and continuously improve the level and quality of trial. To this end, local courts should strictly investigate the responsibility for misjudged cases and promote the quality of cases. Investigate the responsibility for defective cases and illegal cases respectively, and implement the responsibility investigation. Case quality evaluation should not only find wrong cases, but also judge excellent cases and excellent cases, and reward the case undertaker, which will be recorded in the judge's performance appraisal file to encourage judges to do a good job in case handling.